I think the most important aspect of network service-software is the user's freedom with his data. This statement emphasizes the user's ability to modify the software he is using. This makes sense, as the statement's from the FSF, but the most immediate problems affecting users are whether
(a) the data is portable -- if the service is discontinued, or the user wants to change services, can he retreive his data in a usable form? Is he locked in and extorted? and (b) the data is safe -- what regulations are in place to ensure that private data remains private and secure. If Students for Free Culture takes a position, these two elements should be a priority. Regarding the more philosophical side of it, SFS wants to protect the very concept of grass-roots, of bottom-up advancement and participation through technology. Preventing data lock-in and encouraging open standards fit in very well with this goal. Ben. On Mon, July 14, 2008 13:18, Crosbie Fitch wrote: > I'd be careful to understand whether the mission of students for free > culture is to pursue freedom against any constraint, or freedom against > unethical constraint. > > Copyright is an unethical constraint of cultural freedom, but then it's > also > an unethical policing of the private domain (prohibiting copies and > derivatives even in the privacy of one's home, e.g. upon one's own > computers). > > The AGPL utilises copyright's policing of the private domain to force > disclosure of otherwise private source code. > > Some, in thinking that any increase in 'freedom' as defined by Stallman is > a > good thing, thus support this violation of privacy. > > Others, who believe that the public's cultural liberty ends at the > boundary > of the public domain with the private domain, do not support a violation > of > privacy in pursuit of 'freedom to inspect source code', just as they > wouldn't support 'freedom to inspect another's diary'. Indeed 'freedom' > can > be so applied to anything that one covets, e.g. 'freedom to use someone > else's car'. There is no fundamental goodness to 'freedom' per se - unless > one has a utilitarian or even nihilistic (as opposed to a natural rights) > philosophy. > > Now there may well be great things to be said for open network services, > but > that doesn't mean that closed network services are reprehenisble, > despicable > or unethical - even if they are commercial. Whereas, cultural constraints > in > the form of patent and copyright are unethical, despite the excuse that > they > were created to provide a commercial reward for the public's benefit. > > It must also be said that irrespective of the human right to privacy, a > corporation being immortal has no such right, though it may effectively > benefit from the rights of its human constituency. Corporations may also > abuse the confidence of their customers in how they exploit the > information > they collect from them, but it doesn't follow that corporate transparency > should be obligatory, or a lack of it is intrinsically abusive. > > The question is, is SFC in pursuit of cultural emancipation, or is it > evangelising the benefits of openness in all things? > > Liberty or transparency? > > Let's not allow 'freedom to inspect' to be confused with cultural liberty. > It is a good thing to be able to inspect someone else's private > facilities, > their collection of information and intellectual works, but it is not a > natural right - it does need permission or payment. Simply because you > gave > them some of the information they have collected does not give you the > right > to retrieve it - though they may have agreed to provide details of what > they > have collected from you upon request. > > I suggest culture should be free from the unethical constraint of > copyright > and patent, but not also free from the ethical constraint of another's > privacy. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
